DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
RUFINO CAMPUS, BGC, TAGUIG CITY

COURSE OUTLINE
CRIMINAL LAW 1
First Semester, AY 2020 - 2021

Dan Peruelo Calica

INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LAW AND THE

PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

A. Course Syllabus

B. Criminal law defined and preliminary concepts

1. Criminal law

“Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines

crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.”
[Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book I, Nineteenth
Edition, 2017, p. 1, citing 12 Cyc. 129]

“Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit

certain acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those
that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their
punishment.” [Lacson v. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
128096, 20 January 1999]

2. Criminal law is part of substantive law because it involves

the right of the State to prosecute and punish crimes

a. Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640 (1948)

b. “The right to prosecute and punish crimes is an

attribute of sovereignty” [People v. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120 (1922)]

c. "Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil

and the criminal. This notion is rooted in the fundamental theory
that when a criminal act is committed, two (2) different entities are
offended: (1) the State, whose law has been violated; and (2) the
person directly injured by the offender's act or omission.” [Guy v.
Tulfo, G.R. No. 213023, 10 April 2019]

d. “It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the

offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant
or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in
the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to
that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal
 2

therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the

State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may
represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private
offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However,
the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect
despite the acquittal of the accused.” [Guy v. Tulfo, G.R. No.
213023, 10 April 2019]

d. Rules of Court, Rule 110, sec. 2, 5 & 16

3. Crime, Felony and Offense

Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public

law forbidding or commanding it. [Reyes, supra, at 1, citing I
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle’s Third Revision, 729]

Felony is an act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal

Code. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 3 and People v. Gonzales, 183 SCRA
309 (1990)]

Offense is an act or omission defined and punished in a

special penal law, a general law or an ordinance.

4. Corpus delicti
People v. Roluna, G.R. No. 101797, 24 March 1994
People v. Quimzon, G.R. No. 133541, 14 April 2004
People v. Vidal, Jr., G.R. No. 229678, 20 June 2018

C. The classical and positivist theories in Criminal Law

1. Luis B. Reyes, supra, pp. 23-24, citing Basic Principles,

Rationale, p. 2 and 3, by the Code of Commission on Code of
Crimes

2. A.F. Tadiar, Philosophy of a Penal Code, 52 PHIL.L.J. 165

(1977), pp. 183-185

3. Classifying Crime: Major Schools of Criminology,

Southeastern University Online Learning, posted 21 July
2017, https://online.seu.edu/articles/classifying-crime-
major-schools-of-criminology/

4. "The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is

criminally liable for a felony committed by him. Under the
classical theory on which our penal code is mainly based,
the basis of criminal liability is human free will. Man is
essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to
choose between good and evil. When he commits a felonious
or criminal act (delito doloso), the act is presumed to have
been done voluntarily, i.e., with freedom, intelligence and
intent. Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held
accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears
unimpaired." [People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, 19 June
2000]
 3

5. However, in imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must

bear in mind that Philippine penal law is based on the
Spanish penal code and has adopted features of the
positivist theory of criminal law. The positivist theory states
that the basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the
social and economic phenomena to which the offense is
expressed. The adoption of the aspects of the theory is
exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law, Article 4,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (impossible crime),
Article 68 and Articles 11 to 14, not to mention Article 63 of
the Revised Penal Code (penalties for heinous and quasi-
heinous crimes). Philippine penal law looks at the convict as
a member of society. Among the important factors to be
considered in determining the penalty to be imposed on him
are (1) his relationship towards his dependents, family and
their relationship with him; and (2) his relationship towards
society at large and the State. The State is concerned not
only in the imperative necessity of protecting the social
organization against the criminal acts of destructive
individuals but also in redeeming the individual for economic
usefulness and other social ends. The purpose of penalties is
to secure justice. The penalties imposed must not only be
retributive but must also be reformative, to give the convict
an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a
productive and civic-spirited member of the community. The
court has to consider not only the primary elements of
punishment, namely, the moral responsibility of the convict,
the relation of the convict to the private complainant, the
intention of the convict, the temptation to the act or the
excuse for the crime - was it done by a rich man in the
insolence of his wealth or by a poor man in the extremity of
his need? The court must also take into account the
secondary elements of punishment, namely, the reformation
of the offender, the prevention of further offenses by the
offender, the repression of offenses in others. As Rousseau
said, crimes can be thoroughly repressed only by a system of
penalties which, from the benignity they breathe, serve
rather than to soften than to inflame those on whom they
are imposed. There is also merit in the view that punishment
inflicted beyond the merit of the offense is so much
punishment of innocence. [De Joya v. The Jail Warden of
Batangas City, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, 10 December 2003]

D. Penological objectives
A.F. Tadiar, Philosophy of a Penal Code, 52 PHIL.L.J. 165 (1977)

E. Overview of the Philippine criminal justice system

Towards a Responsive Criminal Justice System in the Philippines,
Judge Lilia C. Lopez, Resource Material Series No. 55, 111 th
International Seminar Vising Experts’ Papers, 2000, United
Nations Asia and Far East Institute, p. 291

I. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

A. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege

 4

1. “Applicable here is a familiar maxim in criminal law: Nullum

crimen nulla poena sine lege. There is no crime where there is
no law punishing it.” [Potenciana Evangelista v. People, G.R.
Nos. 108135-36, 14 August 2000]

2. The maxim Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege has its roots
in history. It is in accordance with both centuries of civil law
and common law tradition. Moreover, it is an indispensable
corollary to a regime of liberty enshrined in our Constitution.
It is of the essence then that while anti-social acts should be
penalized, there must be a clear definition of the punishable
offense as well as the penalty that may be imposed - a
penalty, to repeat, that can be fixed by the legislative body,
and the legislative body alone. So constitutionalism
mandates, with its stress on jurisdictio rather than
guvernaculum. The judiciary as the dispenser of justice
through law must be aware of the limitation on its own
power. [Concurring Opinion, Justice Fernando, People v.
Cabural, G.R. No. 34105, 4 February 1983]

3. “Although courts must not remain indifferent to public

sentiments, in this case the general condemnation of a
hazing-related death, they are still bound to observe a
fundamental principle in our criminal justice system – ‘[N]o
act constitutes a crime… unless it is made so by law.’ Nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Even if an act is viewed by a
large section of the populace as immoral or injurious, it
cannot be considered a crime, absent any law prohibiting its
commission. As interpreters of the law, judges are called
upon to set aside emotion, to resist being swayed by strong
public sentiments, and to rule strictly based on the elements
of the offense and the facts allowed in evidence.” [Artemio
Villareal v. People, G.R. Nos. 151258, 154954, 155101,
178057 & 178080, 1 February 2012]

4. Sources of Philippine criminal law

a. Act No. 3815 (1932) or the Revised Penal Code and

amendments thereto

b. Special penal laws

c. Penal provisions in other laws

d. Local ordinances imposing criminal penalties

5. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 5, 21

United States v. Carson Taylor, 28 Phil. 599 (1914)
Lito Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180016, 29
April 2014
REP. ACT NO. 10951 (2016)
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December
2017
 5

6. Rule of Law v. Rule of Justice

Follow the Rule of Law, But Aspire for the Rule of Justice,
Ateneo Law School Commencement Speech, Retired
Supreme Justice Antonio T. Carpio, 14 July 2019

B. State authority to punish crimes

1. The right to prosecute and punish crimes is an attribute of

sovereignty

“Each State has the authority, under its police power,

to define and punish crimes” [People v. Santiago, 43 Phil.
120 (1922)]

“The right to prosecute and punish crimes is an

attribute of sovereignty” [People v. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120
(1922)]

“The right and prosecution for a crime is one of the

attributes that by a natural law belong to the sovereign
power instinctively charged by the common will of the
members of the society to look after, guard and defend the
interests of the community, the individual and social rights
and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the
exercise of his rights.” [United States v. Pablo, 35 Phil. 94
(1916)]

2. Police power

a. People v. Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Sagarano,

G.R. No. 169364, 18 September 2009

Police power is inherent to the state. It can be used to

restrain individual freedom as it is exercised for the
common welfare.

B. CONST. (1987), art. II, sec. 5

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the

protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the
general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the
people of the blessings of democracy.

3. Who exercises police power?

A. CONST. (1987), art. VI, sec. 1

Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the

Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent
 6

reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and

referendum.

B. CONST. (1987), art. II, sec. 1

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican
State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.

c. People v. Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Sagarano,

supra

“The Court held that that the power to punish crimes is a power
inherent to the State by virtue of Police Power. That the legislature
may even forbid acts which were previously considered lawful,
provided that no constitutional rights have been abridged.”

d. Delegated legislative power to local government units

(i) Rep. Act No. 7160 (1991), sec. 16, 48, 391(a)(1),
(14), and (20), 447(a)(1)(ii), (iii), (v) and (vi),
458(a)(1)(ii), (iii), (v) and (vi), 468(a)(1)(ii), (iii), (v)
and (vi)

(ii) Mayor Pablo Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp.,

G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994

Delegated legislative authority (sanggunian

panlungsod) cannot defeat delegating legislative
authority (congress)

(iii) Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v.

Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, 8 August 2017
Local ordinance punishing minors cannot defeat
statute forbidding the same.

4. Limitations on the power to enact penal legislation

a. Due process and vagueness

(i) People v. Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate

Sagarano, supra

Vagueness – Ignorance of the law excuses no

one
Due Process – Tempered by rule of Probable
Cause

(iv) Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 290 (2001)

Facial Challenges – Only applicable if party has
no direct injury
 7

Vagueness – Provisions are meant to be read as

a whole. Vagueness does not mean the lack of
mathmematical precision of words used

Due Process – Still need proof beyond

reasonable doubt, but only needs to hit the
minimum of P50M combination/series.

(ii) Alfredo Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

152259, 29 July 2004
overbreadth doctrine, it usually only applies to
free speech laws. Up to that date, no criminal
statute has been deemed unconstitutional due
to vagueness.

Petitioner’s contention that the word

“intervention” is vague is untenable. Statutory
Construction can be used to easily discern the
meaning of the wordings in the statute

(iii) Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc.

v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. Nos. 178552,
178554, 178581, 178890, 179157 & 179461,
October 5, 2010, 632 SCRA 146
Vagueness as applied to Facial challenge and
overbreadth doctrine only apply to free-speech
cases

Vagueness challenges in penal statutes are only

applied as to the petitioner’s case. In this case,
there is no actual or imminent charge against
petitioners.

b. Effectivity of penal laws

(I ) CIV. CODE (1950), art. 2

Article 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following

the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect
one year after such publication. (1a)

(ii) Exec. Order No. 292 (1987), sec. 18 and 24 and

Commonwealth Act No. 638 (1941)

(II) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 1, 21, 22 and 366

ARTICLE 1. Time When Act Takes Effect. — This
Code shall take effect on the first day of January,
nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
ARTICLE 21. Penalties that May Be Imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any
penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
 8

ARTICLE 22. Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive
effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,
as this term is defined in rule 5 of article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same.

ARTICLE 366. Application of Laws Enacted Prior to this Code. — Without prejudice to
the provisions contained in article 22 of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors,
committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code shall be punished in
accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission.

(iv) Pesigan v. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174 (1984)

Penal laws need to be published first to be

brought into effectivity

(v) Tañada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)

Presidential issuances and laws of general
applicability which were not published have no
binding force. However, implementation of the
decrees before publishment was an operative
fact which cannot be ignored. That an all-
inclusive statement of absolute retroactive
invalidity cannot be justified.

(vi) Tañada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)

All laws, not just those of general applicability
need to be published.

Majority of the Justices agreed that publishment

in a newspaper of general circulation would be
more efficient than in the Official Gazette, but
this power lies in the Legislation.

(vii) Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc.

v. Military Shrine Service Philippine Veterans
Affairs Office, G.R. No. 187587, 5 June 2013

Handwritten addendum by Marcos not binding

c. Ex-post facto law

(I ) CONST. (1987), art. III, sec. 22

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder

shall be enacted.

(ii) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 1, 22

 9

(iii)In re. Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429

(1970)
Considered as ex-post facto law only if it punishes acts
committed before the passage of the same law.

(v) Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans

v. Desierto, G.R. No. 145184, 14 March 2008

Ex-post facto law punishes criminal acts. The

creation of the Ad hoc Committee was merely for
the purpose of discovering behest loans. Acts
which were already punished.

(vi) United States v. Diaz-Conde, 42 Phil. 766 (1922)

Contracts which were legal at the time
Actions done under stipulation of contracts,
which were legal at the time of its creation,
cannot be punished by subsequent laws.

(vii) People v. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95 (1978)

City Court (L) vs Court of First (H) Instance.
Amendment of the penal statute increased
penalty. Cannot be applied to crime committed
before amendment as that would constitute ex-
post facto law.

d. Bill of attainder

(i) CONST. (1987), art. III, sec. 22

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be

enacted.
(ii) People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)

Only considered as Bill of Attainer if it specifically

singles-out names of people or to easily ascertainable
members of a group to inflict punishment without a
trial

5. Other Constitutional and statutory limitations and the rights

of the accused

a. CONST. (1987), art. III, secs. 1, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21

b. RULES OF COURT, Rule 115

C. Characteristics of criminal law

1. General

A. CIV. CODE (1950), art. 14

ARTICLE 14. Penal laws and those of public security and
safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
 10

Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public

international law and to treaty stipulations. (8a)

b. CONST. (1987), art. VI, sec. 1, 11 and art. XI, sec. 2

CONST. (1973), art. VII, sec. 15

c. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of

the Philippines and the Government of the United
States of America Regarding the Treatment of United
States Armed Forces Visiting the Philippines, 10
February 1998 (Visiting Forces Agreement)

d. REP. ACT NO. 75 (1946)

e. REP. ACT NO. 7055 (1991)

Cf. PRES. DECREE No. 1850 (1982)
Rapsing v. Ables, G.R. No. 171855, 15 October 2012
Navales v. Abaya, G.R. Nos. 162318 and 162341
Gonzales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 164007, 10 August 2006
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus, SSgt.
Edgardo Osorio, G.R. No. 223227, 26 February
2018

f. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963)

g. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS), sec. 32

h. Cases:

(i) United States v. Sweet, 1 Phil. 18 (1901)

(ii) Liang v. People, 323 SCRA 692 (2000)

Read also Annotation on “Various Categories of
Diplomatic Immunity from Local
Jurisdiction” in 323 SCRA 699-715 (2000)

(iii) Schneckenburger v. Moran, 63 Phil. 249 (1936)

(iv) Khosrow Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

142396, 11 February 2003

2. Territorial

a. CIV. CODE (1950), art. 14

b. CONST. (1987), art. I

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), art. 2, 3, 27, 29-33, 46-49, 50, 55 to 58, 86
to 87, 97

c. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 2, 163, 166, 114-123

d. Visiting Forces Agreement, art. V

 11

REP. ACT NO. 11479 (2019), sec. 49

REP. ACT NO. 10173 (2012), sec. 6
REP. ACT NO. 10175 (2012), sec. 21

e. Cases:

(i) Miquiabas v. Commanding General, 80 Phil. 262

(1948)

(ii) United States v. Bull, 15 Phil. 7 (1910)

(iii) United States v. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573 (1910)

(iv) United States v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978 (1917)

(v) People v. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729 (1922)

(vi) People v. Lo-lo & Saraw, 43 Phil. 19 (1922)

3. Prospective

a. REV. PEN. CODE, arts. 1, 21, 22 and 366

(i) “A person shall be deemed to be habitual

delinquent, if within a period of ten (10) years
from the date of his release or last conviction of
the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo (robbery), hurto (theft), estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener.” [REV. PEN. CODE,
art. 62(5), as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659
(1993), sec. 23]

b. CIV. CODE (1950), art. 4

c. Cases:

(i) People v. Ringor, 320 SCRA 342 (1999)

(ii) Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. De Lima,

G.R. Nos. 212719 & 214637, 25 June 2019

(iii) Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420

(1971)

(iv) Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, supra

(v) People v. Canuto Bernal, G.R. No. L-44988, 31

October 1936

D. Construction/Interpretation of Penal Laws

1. Strict construction against the State and liberally in favor of

the accused
CONST. (1987), art. III, sec. 14(2)
 12

RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 2

People v. Garcia, 85 Phil. 651 (1950)
Abarquez v. People, G.R. No. 150762, 20 January 2006

Doctrine of In Dubio Pro Reo and Rule of Lenity

“The fundamental principle in applying and interpreting

criminal laws, including the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is
to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo.
When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance
with the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to
be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt.

Intimately intertwined with the in dubio pro reo principle is

the rule of lenity. It is the doctrine that ‘a court, in
construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out
multiple or inconsistent punishments, should resolve the
ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment.’”
[Separate Opinion, J. Corona, People v. Temporada, G.R. No.
173473, 117 December 2008]

In dubio pro reo

The Latin phrase “in dubio pro reo” is loosely translated in

English as “When in doubt, rule for the accused”. [See
Footnote No. 6 in Diño v. Olivares, G.R. No. 170447, 4
December 2009]

“It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized

doctrine of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the
petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider
all possible circumstances in his favor.” [Bongalon v. People,
G.R. No. 169533, 20 March 2013]

Rule of Lenity

“A court, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that

sets out multiple or inconsistent punishments, should
resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient
punishment.” [See Footnote No. 7 in Diño v. Olivares, G.R.
No. 170447, 4 December 2009]

2. Burden of proof in criminal cases and the equipoise rule

RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 2

2. Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code prevails over its

English transaction
People v. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665 (1933)

3. Retroactive application if favorable to the accused

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 22

4. Prescribed, but undeserved, penalties

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 5, 2nd par.
 13

5. Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law

a. Tuates v. Bersamin, G.R. No. 138962, 4 October 2002

b. Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, 4

September 2001

c. People v. Garcia, supra

II. FELONIES AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 3-10

A. Felonies

1. Definition/Elements
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 3

a. Act
People v. Gonzales, 183 SCRA 309 (1990)

b. Omission

(i) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 116, 137, 213(2)(b), 224,

234, 275(1)
(ii) People v. Sylvestre and Atienza, 56 Phil. 353
(1931)

c. Punishable by the Revised Penal Code

(i) Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

(“There is no crime when there is no law
punishing it.”)

(ii) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 3, 5, 1st par., art. 21

(iii) United States v. Carson Taylor, supra

(iv) Lito Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, supra

2. How committed, intentional and culpable felonies and quasi-

offenses
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 3, 365

a. Dolo

(i) Elements

(ii) Presumption of intent

United States v. Apostol, 14 Phil. 92 (1909)
United States v. Catolico, 18 Phil. 504 (1911)
RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec. 3(b)

(iii) General and specific intent

 14

People v. Puno, 219 SCRA 85 (1993)

People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386 (2003)

(iv) Intent and Motive

People v. Temblor, 161 SCRA 623 (1988)
People v. Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 (1988)
People v. Delim, supra

(v) Mistake of fact

United States v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488
(1910)
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943)

b. Culpa
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 3, 205, 208, 217, 224

(i) Rollie Calimutan v. People, G.R. No. 152133, 9

February 2006

(ii) People v. Pugay, G.R. No. L-74324, 17 November

1988

c. Quasi-offenses
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 365

(i) People v. Faller, 67 Phil. 529 (1939)

(ii) Quizon v. Justice of the Peace, G.R. No. L-6641,

28 July 1955

(iii) Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17

November 2010

3. Classification of felonies according to the gravity

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 7, 9, 25, and 26
REP. ACT NO. 10951 (2016), sec. 1 and 2

4. Classification of felonies according to the stage of execution

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 6

B. Crimes defined and penalized by special laws

1. Crimes Mala in se and Mala prohibita

a. Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, 14 March

2006

b. Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, 1 July 2015

c. Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)

d. United States v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 (1909)

e. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra

 15

f. People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, 21 January

1991

g. People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, 16 June 2010

2. Relation of RPC to special laws

a. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 10

b. REP. ACT NO. 9372, art. 52; Rep. Act No. 9165, art. 25,
26 & 98

c. Ladonga v. People, 451 SCRA 673 (2005)

d. People v. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103 (1997)

C. Criminal Liability

1. How incurred

a. Wrongful act done be different from what was

intended

(i) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 4(1), 13(3), 48, 49

(ii) People v. Iligan, 191 SCRA 643 (1990)

(iii) People v. Mananquil, 132 SCRA 196 (1984)

(iv) Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181 (1957)

(v) People v. Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, 27 April

2000

(vi) People v. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307 (1950)

(vii) United States v. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310 (1909)

(viii) People v. Albuquerque, 59 Phil. 150 (1933)

(ix) People v. Gona, 54 Phil. 605 (1903)

(x) Guillermo Wacoy v. People, G.R. No. 213792, 22

June 2015

(xi) United States v. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497 (1921)

(xii) People v. William Page, 77 SCRA 348 (1977)

b. Impossible crimes

(i) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 4(2), 59

(ii) Intod v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 52 (1992)

 16

(iii) Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, 13 July

2009

(iv) People v. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950)

D. Stages of commission

1. Definitions

a. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 6 and 7

b. Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 166326, 25 January 2006

c. United States v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209 (1917)

d. People v. Listerio, 335 SCRA 40 (2000)

e. People v. Enriquez, supra

2. Specific felonies

a. Rape
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-B
People v. Erinia, 50 Phil. 998 (1927)
People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980 (1925)
People v. Orita, 184 SCRA 105 (1990)
People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270 (2000)

b. Theft
United States v. Adiao, 38 Phil. 754 (1918)
People v. Dino, 45 O.G. 3446
Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007

c. Robbery
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 297
People v. Lamahang, 61 Phil. 703 (1935)
People v. Salvilla, 184 SCRA 671 (1990)

d. Murder
People v. Borinaga, 55 Phil. 433 (1930)
People v. Sy, 94 Phil. 885 (1954)
People v. Trinidad, 169 SCRA 51 (1989)

e. Homicide
Giovani Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 175023, 5 July
2010

3. Penalties to be imposed in relation to stages of commission

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 6, 7, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57
and 60, 61 and 71

4. Attempted crimes in special penal laws

Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 26
Rep. Act No. 11479 (2019), sec. 6
 17

Rep. Act No. 10168 (2011), sec. 5

III. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 11-15

A. Justifying Circumstances
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 11, 101

1. Self-defense
People v. Boholst-Caballero, 61 SCRA 180 (1974)
People v. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366 (1947)
United States v. Mack, 8 Phil. 701 (1907)
People v. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 643 (1932)
People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018

2. Defense of honor
People v. Luague, 62 Phil. 504 (1935)
People v. De la Cruz, 61 Phil. 344 (1935)
People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174 (1946)

3. Defense of property
People v. Apolinar, 38 OG 2870 (1938)
United States v. Bumanglag, 14 Phil. 644 (1909)
People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, 20 April 1983

4. Defense of relative
United States v. Esmedia, 17 Phil. 260 (1910)

5. Avoidance of a greater evil

People v. Hernandez, 55 OG 8465 (1959)
Ty v. People, 439 SCRA 220 (2004)

6. Fulfillment of duty
People v. Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, 20 September 2000
Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148431, 28 June 2005

7. Lawful order of superior

People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566 (1955)

8. Battered woman syndrome

Republic Act No. 9262, sec. 3 & 26
People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 (2004)

B. Exempting Circumstances
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 12, 101

1. Insanity
People v. Nuñez, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, 23 July 1997
People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87 (1937)
People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325 (1980)
People v. Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002

2. Somnabulism
People v. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255 (1933)
 18

3. Minority
REP. ACT NO. 9344 (2006)
REP. ACT NO. 10630 (2013)
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 80
PRES. DECREE NO. 603 (1974), as amended, art. 189-204
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (A.M. No. 02-
1-18-SC)
People v. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580 (1939)
People v. Navarro, 51 OG 4062 (1955)
Guevarra v. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, 26 January 1989
Jose v. People, 448 SCRA 116 (2005)
People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, 16 March 2011
People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, 14 December 2011

4. Accident
People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil. 15 (1931)
U.S. v. Tanedo, 15 Phil. 196 (1910)
Pomoy v. People, 439 SCRA 439 (2004)

5. Irresistible force/uncontrollable fear

United States v. Caballeros, 4 Phil. 350 (1905)
United States v. Exaltacion, 3 Phil. 339 (1904)
Ty v. People, supra

6. Insuperable cause
U.S. v. Vicentillo, 19 Phil. 118 (1911)
People v. Bandian, 63 Phil. 530 (1936)

C. Absolutory Causes and Similar Situations

1. Instigation and entrapment

People v. Lua Chu, 56 Phil. 44 (1931)
United States v. Phelps, 16 Phil. 440 (1910)
People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999

2. Absolutory causes
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 6(3), 7, 16, 20, 247, 280, 332, 344
People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735 (1987)
People v. Jimmy Talisic, G.R. No. 97961, 5 September 1997
Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong v.
People, G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2012

D. Mitigating Circumstances
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13, 62, 63, 64 and 65

1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(1), art. 67, 69

2. Minority and over seventy years old

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(2), art. 68, & 83

3. Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(3)
People v. Ural, 56 SCRA 138 (1974)
 19

4. Sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(4)
People v. Leonor, 305 SCRA 285 (1999)

5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(5)
United States v. Ampar, 37 Phil. 201 (1917)
People v. Pajares, 210 SCRA 237 (1992)

6. Passion or obfuscation
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(6)
United States v. Hicks, 14 Phil. 217 (1909)
United States v. De la Cruz, 22 Phil. 429 (1912)

7. Voluntary surrender and confession of guilt

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(7)

8. Physical defect
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(8)

9. Illness
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(9)
People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 576 (1999)

10. Analogous circumstances

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 13(10)
Canta v. People, 353 SCRA 250 (2001)

11. Privileged mitigating circumstances

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(2) on minority, 64(5), 67, 68 & 69
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 255, 258, 268, par. 3, 333, par. 3
Baxinela v. People, G.R. No. 149652, 24 March 2006

E. Aggravating Circumstances
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 14, 62, 63, 64 and 65
RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, sec. 8 & 9
People v. Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, 13 February 2004
PO3 Sombilon, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 175528
People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, 27 July 2011

1. Advantage be taken of public position

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(1), art. 62(1)(a)
People v. Ural, supra

2. In contempt or with insult to public authorities

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(2)
People v. Rodil, 109 SCRA 308 (1981)

3. Disregard of rank, age or sex or committed in dwelling of

offended party
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(3)
People v. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511 (1978)

4. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness

 20

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(4)

5. Crime committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in

his presence or where public authorities are engaged
in the discharge of their duties or in a place dedicated
to religious worship
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(5)

6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(6)
People v. Bermas, 309 SCRA 741 (1999)

7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,

epidemic or other calamity or misfortune
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(7)

8. With the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford

impunity
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(8)

9. Recidivism
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(9)
People v. Lagarto, 196 SCRA 611 (1991)

10. Reiteracion or Habituality

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(10)
People v. Melchor Real, G.R. No. 93436, 24 March 1995

11. Price, reward or promise

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(11)

12. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of

a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a
locomotive, or by the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(12)

13. Evident premeditation

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(13)
United States v. Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77 (1909)

14. Craft, fraud or disguise

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(14)

15. Advantage be taken of superior strength or means be

employed to weaken the defense
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(15)

16. Treachery
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(16)
People v. Sangalang, 58 SCRA 737 (1974)
Cirera v. People, G.R. No. 181843, 14 July 2014

17. Ignominy
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(17)
 21

People v. Torrefiel, 45 OG 803 (1942)

People v. Alfanta, 320 SCRA 357 (1999)

18. Unlawful entry

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(18)

19. A wall, roof, floor, door or window be broken

REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(19)

20. With aid of persons below 15 years old or by means of motor

vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships or similar
means
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(19)

21. Cruelty
REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 14(20)

22. Special aggravating circumstances and instances where the

penalty is always imposed in its maximum period
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 48, 49, 62(1)(a), 160, 295, & 296

F. Alternative Circumstances
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 15

1. Relationship
People v. Orilla, supra

2. Intoxication
People v. Camano, 115 SCRA 688 (1982)

3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender

IV. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 16-20

A. In Grave and Less Grave Felonies

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 16

1. Principals
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 17

a. Principals by direct participation

United States v. Diris, 26 Phil. 133 (1918)

b. Principals by inducement
People v. Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil. 788 (1934)
United States v. Indanan, 24 Phil. 203 (1913)
People v. Omine, 61 Phil. 609 (1935)

c. Principals by indispensable cooperation

People v. Montealegre, 161 SCRA 700 (1988)
People v. Simbra, 117 SCRA 242 (1982)

2. Accomplices
 22

a. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 18

b. People v. Nierra, 96 Phil. 1 (1980)

People v. Doble, 114 SCRA 131 (1982)
People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 (1991)
People v. Vera, 312 SCRA 640 (1999)

3. Accessories

a. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 19 and 20

b. People v. Talingdan, 84 SCRA 19 (1978)

Vino v. People, 178 SCRA 626 (1989)

c. PRES. DECREE NOS. 1612 and 1829

B. In Light Felonies
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 16

C. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony

a. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 8, 115, 136, 141, 306

b. Pres. Decree No. 1613 (1979), sec. 7

Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 26
Rep. Act No. 10667 (2015), sec. 14 & 30
Rep. Act No. 11479 (2019), sec. 7 & 8
Rep. Act No. 10168 (2011), sec. 5

c. People v. Peralta, 25 SCRA 759 (1968)

d. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965,

26 February 2002

D. Multiple/Repeat offenders

a. Recidivism
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 14(9)
People v. Lagarto, supra
People v. Faustino Tolentino, G.R. No. L-48740, 5 August
1942

b. Habituality (Reiteracion)
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 14(10)
People v. Melchor Real, supra

c. Quasi-Recidivism
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 160
People v. Nicolas Layson, G.R. No. L-25177, 31 October 1969

d. Habitual Delinquency
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 62(5)
People v. Canuto Bernal, supra
 23

E. Corporate criminal liability

1. West Coast Insurance Co. V. Geo Hurd, G.R. No. L-8527,

30 March 1914

2. Ching v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 164317, 6

February 2006

3. Rep. Act No. 8282 (1997), sec. 28(f)

Rep. Act No. 10173 (2012), sec. 34
Rep. Act No. 10175 (2012), sec. 9
Rep. Act No. 11232 (2018), sec. 154-171

V. PENALTIES

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 21-88

A. General Principles

1. Constitutional limitations
CONST., art. III, sec. 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, & 22

a. No ex post facto law and bill of attainder

b. Due process

c. No cruel and inhuman punishment

2. Prospectivity
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 1, 21, 22, Civil Code, art. 4

3. Rep. Act No. 9745 (2009)

B. Purposes
A.F. Tadiar, Philosophy of a Penal Code, supra

C. Penalties that may be imposed

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 21, 24, 25

1. Death penalty

a. CONST., art. III, sec. 19(1)

b. REP. ACT NO. 9346 (2006)

c. REP. ACT NO. 7659 (1993)

d. People v. Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682 (1997)

a. People v. Munoz, G.R. Nos. 38969-70, 9 February

1989

b. People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, 30 October 2006

 24

g. People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, 10 September

2009

h. People v. Arpon, supra

D. Classification
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25, 26
REP. ACT NO. 10951, sec. 2

E. Duration and Effect

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 27 to 45
REP. ACT NO. 7659, sec. 21

1. Reclusion perpetua v. Life imprisonment

Rep. Act No. 7659, sec. 21
People v. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9 January 1995
Administrative Circular 6-A-92, Supreme Court, 21 June
1992

2. Destierro
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 87, 247, 284 & 334

3. Preventive imprisonment and Provisional release

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 29
REP. ACT NO. 10592 (2013)

4. Civil interdiction
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 34

5. Bond to keep the peace

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 35

Bond for good behavior

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 284

6. Subsidiary penalty
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 39
REP. ACT NO. 10159 (2012)
People, through Private Complainant Brian Victor Britchford,
v. Salvador Alapan, G.R. No. 199527, 10 January
2018

F. Application

1. Rules for the application of penalties on principals,

accomplices and accessories
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 46, 50 to 57

2. Rules for graduating penalties

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 61 to 65, 71
People v. Bon, supra

3. Complex crimes and other cases of Plurality of crimes

a. Plurality of crimes
 25

(i) Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41054,

28 November 1975

(ii) Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de

Carungcong v. People, supra

b. Complex crimes

(i) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 48

(ii) People v. Guillen, supra

(iii) Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)

(iv) Napolis v. Court of Appeals, 43 SCRA 301 (1972)

(v) People v. Toling, 62 SCRA 17 (1975)

(vi) People v. Salvilla, supra

(vii) People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999)

(viii) People v. Sanidad, G.R. No. 146099, 30 April

2003

(ix) People v. Lawas, 97 Phil. 975 (1955), unreported

b. Special complex crimes

(i) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 123(3), 266-B par. 4 & 5,

267, 294(1) to (3) & 297

(ii) People v. Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, 22 June

2015

(iii) People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, 11 April

2012

c. Continued crime and Continuing crime

(i) People v. De Leon, 49 Phil 437 (1926)

(ii) Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990)

(iii) Sanlakas, et.al. v. Angelo Reyes, et.al., G.R. Nos.

159085, 159103, 159185, 159196, 3 February
2004 (read only the Separate Opinion of Justice
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago)

(d) Two separate and distinct crimes

(i) REV. PEN. CODE, art. 210, 235

(ii) Rep. Act No. 3019 (1960), sec. 3

 26

(iii) Rep. Act No. 9745 (2009), sec. 15

(e) The absorption principle

(i) Rev. Pen. Code, art. 114, 134 & 320

(ii) Gonzales v. Abaya, supra

(iii) People v. Prieto, 80 Phil. 138 (1948)

(iv) Enrile v. Salazar, supra

(v) Ponce Enrile v. Amin, 189 SCRA 573 (1990)

(vi) People v. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, 15 March

2010

5. Penalties in special cases

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 48, 49, 58, 59, 60, 67, 68, 69

6. Three-fold rule
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 70
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. L-51065-72, 30 June
1987

7. Indeterminate Sentence Law

a. ACT NO. 4103 (1933), as amended

b. REP. ACT NO. 9346, sec. 3

A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 4 August 2015

b. People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994,

234 SCRA 555 (1994)

c. People v. Lampaza, 319 SCRA 112 (1999)

d. People v. Oyanib, G.R. No. 130634-35, 12 March 2001

(see Footnote 36)

e. People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109 (1933)

f. People v. Gabres, 267 SCRA 581, 595-596 (1997)

g. People v. Padlan, G.R. No. 214880, 6 September 2017

G. Execution and Service

1. Probation

a. PRES. DECREE NO. 968 (1976), as amended

REP. ACT NO. 9344 (2006), sec. 42, 67, 68
REP. ACT NO. 10707 (2015)
REP. ACT NO. 9165 (2012), sec. 24, 70
 27

b. Francisco v. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384

(1995)

c. Yusi v. Morales, 121 SCRA 854 (1983)

c. Cal v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 523 (1995)

d. Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, 13 December

2011

e. Llamado v. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 566 (1989)

f. Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148, 154 (1984)

g. Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459 (1990)

h. Salgado v. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 304 (1990)

i. Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, 23 July 2008

2. Children in conflict with the law

a. Rep. Act. No. 9344, sec. 42

b. Rep. Act No. 9165, 24, 70

c. Padua v. People, supra

VI. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 89-99

A. Total Extinction
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 89

1. Death of the convict

RULES OF COURT, Rule 20, sec. 7 & 8
RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, sec. 4

a. People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 (1994)

b. People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 190610, 25 April

2012

2. Service of the sentence

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 78, 70, 97-99 & 29
REP. ACT NO. 10592 (2013)

3. Amnesty
CONST., art. VII, sec. 19
People v. Patriarca, G.R. No. 135547, 29 September
2000
People v. Casido, G.R. No. 116512, 7 March 1997
Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642 (1949)
 28

People v. Vera, et at., G.R. No. L-26539, 28 February 1990

Proclamation No. 75, Series of 2010
Proclamation No. 572, Series of 2018 revoking amnesty
granted to Antonio Trillanes IV

4. Absolute pardon
CONST., art. VII, sec. 19
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 23, 344
Flora v. Oximana, G.R. No. 19745, 31 January 1964
Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, supra
Pelobello v. Palatino, G.R. No. 48100, 20 June 1941
Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 206666, 21 January 2015

5. Prescription of the crime

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 90 and 91
ACT NO. 3326 (1926)
CIVIL CODE, art. 13
RULES OF COURT, Rule 22
EXEC. ORDER NO. 292, sec. 31
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-7234, 21 May 1955
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Primetown Property
Group, Inc., G.R. No. 162155, 28 August 2007

6. Prescription of the penalty

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 92 and 93

7. Marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article

344 of the Revised Penal Code
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-C
People v. Ronie de Guzman, G.R. No. 185843, 3 March
2010
People v. Ernesto dela Cerna, G.R. Nos. 136899-904, 9
October 2002

B. Partial Extinction
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 94
REP. ACT NO. 10592 (2013)

1. Conditional pardon
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 95
In re. Antonio Infante, G.R. No. 4164, 12 December
1952
Torres v. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272 (1987)

2. Commutation of the sentence

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 96

3. Good conduct allowances

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 97, 98, 99 and 158
Baking v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-30364, 28 July
1969
REP. ACT NO. 10592 (2013)
 29

VII. CIVIL LIABILITY

REV. PEN. CODE, art. 100-113

CIV. CODE, art. 19-21, 29-36, 1157, 1158 to 1162, 2176, 2177, 2180,
2202, 2204, 2206, 2216, 2219, 2230, 2233, 2234
Rules of Court, Rule 111, sec. 1

A. In general

1. Chua v. Court of Appeals, 443 SCRA 142 (2004)

B. Persons civilly liable

1. Carpio v. Doroja, 180 SCRA 1(1989)

2. Basilio v. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 341 (2000)

3. Philippine Rabbit v. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA 526 (2004)

4. Quinto v. Andres, 453 SCRA 511 (2005)

C. What civil liability includes

1. Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos, 27 SCRA 327

(1969)

D. Extinction of civil liability

1. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 89

2. CIV. CODE, art. 29

3. RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, sec. 1 & 4

4. People v. Bayotas, supra